EPA's own study argues for California waiver

California currently suffers disproportionately heavier air pollution casualties than other states due to global warming, and this problem will become worse as warming increases.

The Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to protect human health, including Californians', and, when the state's health risks are more severe than others, it should allow California to address its own air pollution problems. Yet the federal EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson ignored the preponderance of scientific evidence, and in December denied California's request to set its own carbon dioxide emission standards from vehicles.

It is time that he reconsider the issue - taking into account new evidence - and reverse his decision.

Johnson denied the waiver, according to his testimony in a Senate committee hearing on Jan. 24, because he was not convinced of "compelling and extraordinary conditions" to justify giving California the special authority to set its own emission standards. Indeed, he testified, "[G]reenhouse gas emissions harm the environment in California and elsewhere regardless of where the emissions occur."

However, California does have unique circumstances, as indicated by both the State of California, in its waiver request, and the staff members in Johnson's own agency, who provided their opinions to him prior to his decision. The California and EPA officials cited California's facing such enhanced risks from global warming as water shortages, rising sea levels and increased wildfires - all of which will affect California more than other states.

There is still one more special circumstance that rises above these others. This circumstance is that global warming currently causes greater respiratory and cardiovascular disease in California per person than in other states through its impact on air pollution. This factor is particularly relevant to the EPA's charge, given its primary responsibility to "protect the public health" through "improving the quality of the nation's air," according to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.

The adverse air pollution health impacts due to global warming were determined from research I conducted, which was published Feb. 12 in the peer-reviewed journal, Geophysical Research Letters. The paper provides evidence that people in California are harmed more than people outside of California due to carbon dioxide's effect on air pollution. Johnson should have been aware of this study because his agency funded a portion of the research, and results from the study were presented to the EPA in October 2007.

The study found that carbon dioxide increases ozone and particulate matter - unhealthful pollutants in smog - by increasing temperatures and water vapor in the atmosphere. What's more, it showed that ozone, in particular, increases the most where it is already high. This does not bode well for California, which has six of the 10 most polluted cities in the United States: Los Angeles, Visalia-Porterville, Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced and Sacramento.

The study found that, for every one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase due to carbon dioxide, the U.S. death rate due to ozone and particle pollution increases by approximately 1,000 per year. Of these deaths, more than 300 (or more than 30 percent) occur in California. Because California has only 12 percent of the U.S. population, the Golden State clearly suffers disproportionately more than other states due to carbon dioxide-induced global warming. Most of these additional deaths are occurring today, as global warming to date has already increased global temperatures by 0.8 degrees Celsius.

The science shows that California already suffers more air pollution mortality per capita from carbon dioxide than other states. The problem will grow worse in California than in other states if stricter standards for carbon dioxide emissions are not put in place.

Johnson needs to take another look at the evidence. A change in policy will not only benefit the health of our citizens. It will also restore our country's faith that policy decisions on complex issues will be based on rigorous scientific inquiry.